John Lehmkuhl: A functional Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission

By John Lehmkuhl

Headlines since December 2024 have pronounced the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission “dysfunctional.” That judgement came from an opinion survey of about 100 hand-picked people by the Ruckelshaus Center at Washington State University. It spawned critical news articles, rancorous social media traffic and raucous public input at commission meetings. It supported a petition to the governor to remove four commissioners, bills in the Legislature to reform the commission and an investigation by the governor’s office.

Many interviewees claim the commission is captured by radical environmentalists in thrall to animal rights advocates and set on abolishing hunting and fishing. Conversely, other critics think the commission and department are in thrall to hunters and fishers and actively disenfranchise the large nonhunting public. Both views are cartoons of the reality that commission membership, function and accomplishments are well matched to their mandated task.

The commission oversees an agency with a complex mandate. The agency has the mandate to “preserve, protect, enhance and manage” all terrestrial, freshwater and marine fish and wildlife, to maintain viable commercial fishing and shellfish industries and to maximize recreational opportunity. It is obliged to consult with 29 sovereign tribes to ensure their treaty rights and to co-manage the conservation, harvest and hatchery production of salmon. Washington’s 8 million citizens – twice the population density of Oregon and 10 times that of Montana – exert heavy pressure on fish, wildlife and habitats. Large urban and rural areas have many proactive and vocal interest groups ranging from animal rights advocates to traditional consumptive users.

Commission membership in recent years has been well-balanced to represent the broad range of public values and to address the complex challenges of 21st century fish and wildlife management. Simply examining the commission’s and department’s strong record of recent successes is ample proof of its functionality. For example, the commission oversaw a permanent budget addition by the 2023 Legislature of $25 million solely for biodiversity management. It has annually approved hunting and fishing regulations with little change in opportunity, except for canceling the spring black bear hunt. During 2024, it approved state-of-the-art cougar and fall bear hunting rules developed by staff that incorporate a decade or more of department research. It has overseen the natural restoration of a thriving wolf population and one of the most successful wolf-livestock conflict programs in the country. It oversees a large and complex fish program that manages commercial and recreational fishing, including over 80 state hatcheries, and a strong habitat program that works with public and private landowners to protect habitats while enabling human activities.

The department staff and the commission respect tribal sovereignty by routinely consulting tribes on management and policy issues. For example, staff annually work with tribal co-managers and nontribal stakeholders to allocate and set rules for salmon harvest. The commission consulted with tribes to develop and jointly pass hatchery co-management, science integrity and wild trout management policies.

Sure, there have been difficult choices and controversy over decisions like spring bear hunting and an inclusive definition of conservation. Probing public discussions often generate controversy and are interpreted wrongly as dysfunction or disrespect of staff or the public. Consideration of both the diversity of public values and good science is challenging but vital to all their decisions. Traditional game management principles have always been a bedrock of game management; yet, by necessity the agency incorporates many other relevant practices that address numerous nongame issues. Opportunities for public input are abundant. Every new rule has mandated public comment periods, web commenting is available 24/7 and 25% of monthly meeting time is allocated by commission policy for open public input. Nothing is perfect, however, so the commission is refining its rules of procedure and decision-making processes.

The WDFW and its commission have a complex and difficult job: They are more than grandpa’s game department. Calling the Commission dysfunctional is a false narrative that misrepresents its mission and accomplishments and is a disservice to the dedicated volunteer members of the commission.

John Lehmkuhl is a life-long hunter and fisherman, a retired wildlife biologist and current vice chair of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. The opinions in this letter are his alone, not those of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission or its members.